where is Osama?

[Benny2guns]

Who needs Osama bin Laden?

The world is full of conspiracy theorists spreading misinformation, thereby doing much of his dirty work for him.

The world is also full of people spreading stories to support the official story told by the government. To bad the official story does not stand up to scrutiny and falls apart at a second glance.
Tell me VF how one of the towers fell straight down at near free fall from a plane impact again and make me believe it. Make me believe that these buildings did something no other building has ever done without the use of controlled explosives.
If you or anyone else can I'll believe all the crap spewed about the big terrorist threat.
Oh thats right you can't because they won't, all they do is try to discount all the facts about the truth of what happened. They use people like you to do their work for them. You say absolutely nothing but ...hey that guy is full of it or look another conspiracy theory and all the while never having offered a story to support the events other than the government said this is what happened and you must believe us because we say so.

[Benny2guns]

Read more about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

So where is your proof? How did it happen once let alone 3 times? Please, I would like to know what supports your belief of the official story.
Moved to SD&D MODD

[cigarbabe]

Read more about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

So where is your proof? How did it happen once let alone 3 times? Please, I would like to know what supports your belief of the official story.

How about the intense heat from the gallons of jet fuel?
Couple that with buildings were never built to withstand the kind of damage inflicted on it by
the plane crashing, jet fuel fires with very intense heat and debris from the plane would create a conduit for the burning of those fires.

The building frame would collapse under it's own weight Benny with those kind of pressures.
No conspiracy theory necessary.
Here's the proof
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technolo...tml?page=4
C.B.

[Benny2guns]

Read more about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

So where is your proof? How did it happen once let alone 3 times? Please, I would like to know what supports your belief of the official story.

How about the intense heat from the gallons of jet fuel?
Couple that with buildings were never built to withstand the kind of damage inflicted on it by
the plane crashing, jet fuel fires with very intense heat and debris from the plane would create a conduit for the burning of those fires.

The building frame would collapse under it's own weight Benny with those kind of pressures.
No conspiracy theory necessary.
Here's the proof
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technolo...tml?page=4
C.B.

Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to fatigue the steel mains to cause the collapse as it happened. Thats a proven and well known fact.
All of them would need to go in a precise pattern floor by floor to bring it straight down at near free fall. Thats another proven and well known fact. 3 buildings came down the same way not just the one.
I am sorry but that link proves nothing. Jet fuel would indeed heat them in the aera of the impact but the fire was not burning long enough to accomplish what FEMA (lol) claims. Fire fighters themselves have stated the fires were for the most part out. There are to many experts that agree the buildings were pulled.
Why was all the steel hauled away and disposed of before anyone could examine it for trace evidence. I do not beleive a word of a report from FEMA of all places.
EDIT: Those 2 towers were indeed built to sustain damage from an airliner crashing into them and by more than just one strike I might add, thats well published info by the way.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

[Benny2guns]

The 911 conspiracy theory wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories

The institutions in both cases are government funded and run and not independent studies by any stretch of the imagination. They are part of what has been know to be disinformation to coheirs people away from the real facts. Again I offer real hard evedince and not Wiki postings supported by the people at the top.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis...fires.html

[Benny2guns]

Real hard evidence?
Where is your evidence?

All I see above is a URL link to WTC7.net, which is a conspiracy theory web site.
That isn't evidence.

Not one of those websites. It has hard evedence but you have to click to view it.
The Fires
The Twin Towers' Fires and Their Possible Effects

The South Tower's fires burned hot enough at produce visible flames and light smoke (photograph) until the jet fuel burned off less than ten minutes after the crash. Thereafter the fires dwindled and the smoke darkened. When it collapsd 56 minutes after the crash, the invisible fires were emitting only a thin veil of black smoke.
Much was made of the severity of the fires in the Twin Towers, since fires were invoked to explain failures they had never before caused. Some reports compared the heat produced by the fires to that of nuclear power plants. In fact the fires were not as severe as many other highrise fires, none of which caused the buildings to collapse. Furthermore, the fires became less severe over time, at least in the South Tower, whose smoke became thin and nearly black by the time its total destruction.

Fire-induced column failure collapse theories, such as Prof. Bazant's, assume scenarios in which fires consume entire floors and burn for extended periods at temperatures of over 800° C. There are several problems with such scenarios.

800°C is near the maximum flame temperature of hydrocarbons burning in air without pre-heating or pressurization of the air (estimates of which range from 900°C to 1250°C 1 ). Those temperatures are usually reached only with premixed (blue) flames, such as in gas stoves and blowtorches. Diffuse flames, such as in building fires, tend to be cooler. Although enclosures can elevate fire temperatures considerably by containing the fires' heat, tests that have recorded gas temperatures of over 800°C have involved ventilation and fuel supply characteristics arguably not present in the Twin Towers.
Widespread fires reaching 700°C would have caused extensive window breakage over time. Although there are breaches in the perimeter wall glazing of parts of the Towers that appear to have ocurred after the plane crashes, such as in a fire zone on the 104th and 105th floor of the North Tower, descriptions of windows popping or falling on victims are not readily apparent in the eyewitness reports from that day. This contrasts with the prominence of reports of fire-induced window-popping in other highrise fires.
Widespread fires reaching 700°C and would have made the steel glow red-hot. Visual records of the events, while showing fire damage to the aluminum cladding covering the perimeter columns, do not appear to show glowing steel. 2
Fires would have to be very extensive to raise the temperatures of columns to near the fire temperatures, given the thermal sinks of the steel structures. Columns of the perimeter walls were thermally coupled to eachother by broad spandrel plates at each floor, and the core columns were part of a lattice of beams and columns which would have wicked heat from a hotspot in three dimensions. In order to soften columns, fires would have to exceed the capacity of the many tons of steel in and around the crash zones to draw away the heat -- a difficult feat in the 56 and 102 minutes that the fires burned.
Fires apparently did not involve entire floors of either Tower at any one time. The South Tower shows no evidence of fires on its northwest side at any time. The North Tower at times shows fires spanning most of a face, but the fires are not even emergant, in contrast to the One Meridian Plaza or First Interstate Bank fires.
Heating the external columns would be especially difficult because the columns were situated outside the interior volume, with only one of the four sides adjacent to the building's interior.
Heating of core columns would be especially difficult given the apparently poor ventilation of the core regions, being further from any air supply.
As fires consumed fuel supplies and became less severe, affected columns would have cooled and regained strength lost due to elevated temperatures.
Even if such hot and widespread fires existed, they would still be unlikely to cause failures of the columns in either of the Towers.

The incompatibility of the fire-triggered column-failure scenario with the observed characteristics of the fires created the need for the truss theory.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How Intense and Extensive Were the Twin Towers' Fires?
The plane crashes resulted in significant fires in both Towers, at least for the first few minutes after the crashes. The fires in the North Tower were considerably more extensive than than those in the South Tower. As time progressed the fires in at least the South Tower appeared to diminish greatly in severity. This was probably due to most of the jet fuel being exhausted within a few minutes of the impacts. Since kerosene (jet fuel) has a low boiling point and a low flash point, most of it would have evaporated and caught fire quickly.

The Fires at Their Most Severe
How severe were the fires at their greatest extents?

Fires in the North Tower covered extensive regions, at least near the perimeter walls, of about three floors. Fires in the South Tower also extended over about three floors, but were more localized to one side of the building.
The fires were not hot enough to produce significant window breakage in either Tower. Window breakage is a common occurrence in large office fires, particularly when temperatures exceed 600° C.
The flames mostly remained within the buildings. Significant emergence of flames from the buildings, another common feature of large office fires, was only observed in a limited region of the North Tower.
The fires did not spread significantly beyond the impact region. With the exception of a region of fire about 10 floors above the crash zone in the North Tower, the fires remained around the impact zones.
The fires did not cause parts of the building to glow. At temperatures above 700° C, steel glows red hot, a feature that is visible in daylight.

The Fires' Progression Over Time

Most photographs of the South Tower show relatively dark smoke, and in much less quantity than from the North Tower. See photographs.
Given that the vast majority of the volatile jet fuel was consumed inside five minutes of each crash, the fires subsequently dwindled, limited to the fuels of conventional office fires. The fires in both Towers diminished steadily until the South Tower's collapse. Seconds before, the remaining pockets of fire were visible only to the firefighters and victims in the crash zone. A thin veil of black smoke enveloped the Tower's top. In the wake of the South Tower's fall new areas of fire appeared in the North Tower.

This summary is supported by simple observations of the extent and brightness of the flames and the color and quantity of smoke, using the available photographic and video evidence.

Visible flames diminished greatly over time. Significant emergence of flames from the building is only seen in a region of the North Tower 10 stories above the impact zone.
South Tower: Virtually no flames were visible at the time of its collapse.
North Tower: Flames were visible in several areas at the time of its collapse. A region of flames on the 105th floor is seen after the South Tower collapse.
The smoke darkened over time. While the fires in both Towers emitted light gray smoke during the first few minutes following the impacts, the color of the smoke became darker.
South Tower: Smoke from the fires was black by the time it collapsed. At that time it was only a small fraction of the volume of the smoke from the North Tower.
North Tower: Smoke from the fires had become much darker by the time the South Tower was struck, 17 minutes after the fires were ignited. The smoke was nearly black when the South Tower collapsed. Thereafter the smoke appears to have lightened and emerged from the building at an accelerated rate.


After the fall of the South Tower, the North Tower continued to produce prodigious quantities of smoke, and showed regions of active fires. See photographs.
Dark smoke implies the presence of soot, which is composed of uncombusted hydrocarbons. Soot is produced when a fire is oxygen-starved, or has just been extinguished. Soot also has a high thermal capacity and may act to rob a fire of heat by carrying it away.

Evidence of fires within the buildings' cores is scant. NIST found only two core column specimens in a condition allowing paint-analysis inferences about temperatures reached, and those temperatures were below 250°C. It can be assumed that most of the fires were near the perimeters of the Towers where broken windows around the crash zone allowed them a supply of air. The cores were an average distance of about 70 feet from the nearest walls, and had much less flammable material than the surrounding offices. The impact gash in the North Tower provided a line of sight to the core. Available photographs and videos show the gash as consistently dark, showing no signs of fire in the building's core.

Eyewitness Reports
Dozens of people were observed to jump from floors of the North Tower above the impact zone. They may have jumped to escape painful deaths from inhalation of toxic smoke, or to escape unbearable heat. Note, however, that temperatures unbearable to a human, such as 100° C, are insignificant to the survivability of structural materials.

At least 18 survivors evacuated from above the crash zone of the South Tower through a stairwell that passed through the crash zone, and many more would have were it not for confusion in the evacuation process. None of the survivors reported great heat around the crash zone. An audiotape of firefighter communications revealed that firefighters had reached the 78th floor sky lobby of the South Tower and were enacting a plan to evacuate people and put out the "two pockets of fire" they found, just before the Tower was destroyed.

[cigarbabe]

Read more about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

So where is your proof? How did it happen once let alone 3 times? Please, I would like to know what supports your belief of the official story.

How about the intense heat from the gallons of jet fuel?
Couple that with buildings were never built to withstand the kind of damage inflicted on it by
the plane crashing, jet fuel fires with very intense heat and debris from the plane would create a conduit for the burning of those fires.

The building frame would collapse under it's own weight Benny with those kind of pressures.
No conspiracy theory necessary.
Here's the proof
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technolo...tml?page=4
C.B.

Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to fatigue the steel mains to cause the collapse as it happened. Thats a proven and well known fact.
All of them would need to go in a precise pattern floor by floor to bring it straight down at near free fall. Thats another proven and well known fact. 3 buildings came down the same way not just the one.
I am sorry but that link proves nothing. Jet fuel would indeed heat them in the aera of the impact but the fire was not burning long enough to accomplish what FEMA (lol) claims. Fire fighters themselves have stated the fires were for the most part out. There are to many experts that agree the buildings were pulled.
Why was all the steel hauled away and disposed of before anyone could examine it for trace evidence. I do not beleive a word of a report from FEMA of all places.
EDIT: Those 2 towers were indeed built to sustain damage from an airliner crashing into them and by more than just one strike I might add, thats well published info by the way.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

First of all neither I nor the article provided ever say that the burning jet fuel would be hot enough to melt a steel frame. Debunking Benny #1
The wtc towers did come down the same way by "pancaking" from the weight of the debris and floors on top of each other. Debunking Benny #2
Nothing was carted away before it was examined Benny if you watched the proceedings as I did or saw the way it fell in real time as I did you would know that the fires were most certainly not out after the explosions.
What common sense will tell you if a building is filled with fuel that found a spark like oh say PAPER, furniture, and carpeting it is going to burn like a motherfucker conspiracy theories aside it doesn't just go out by itself it burns Benny Boo it burns!
It is apparent to me you couldn't have possibly read all ten plus pages and discounted all of the reports from different agencies. Not all of them are associated with Fema mind you but if you want to believe in hocus pocus by all means and lest we forget all of the proof from the nut cases please provide the links from your reliable sources dearest. I'm going to bet that your proof comes from a nut site like AttackonAmerica.net or some other clone of it.

Here are some of Attack on Americas claim's;

"Melted" Steel
Claim: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength — and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.


So there you go Benny boo.
This concludes my "Debunking of Benny's conspiracy theories" part 1
C.B.

[Benny2guns]

Read more about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

So where is your proof? How did it happen once let alone 3 times? Please, I would like to know what supports your belief of the official story.

How about the intense heat from the gallons of jet fuel?
Couple that with buildings were never built to withstand the kind of damage inflicted on it by
the plane crashing, jet fuel fires with very intense heat and debris from the plane would create a conduit for the burning of those fires.

The building frame would collapse under it's own weight Benny with those kind of pressures.
No conspiracy theory necessary.
Here's the proof
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technolo...tml?page=4
C.B.

Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to fatigue the steel mains to cause the collapse as it happened. Thats a proven and well known fact.
All of them would need to go in a precise pattern floor by floor to bring it straight down at near free fall. Thats another proven and well known fact. 3 buildings came down the same way not just the one.
I am sorry but that link proves nothing. Jet fuel would indeed heat them in the aera of the impact but the fire was not burning long enough to accomplish what FEMA (lol) claims. Fire fighters themselves have stated the fires were for the most part out. There are to many experts that agree the buildings were pulled.
Why was all the steel hauled away and disposed of before anyone could examine it for trace evidence. I do not beleive a word of a report from FEMA of all places.
EDIT: Those 2 towers were indeed built to sustain damage from an airliner crashing into them and by more than just one strike I might add, thats well published info by the way.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

First of all neither I nor the article provided ever say that the burning jet fuel would be hot enough to melt a steel frame. Debunking Benny #1
The wtc towers did come down the same way by "pancaking" from the weight of the debris and floors on top of each other. Debunking Benny #2
Nothing was carted away before it was examined Benny if you watched the proceedings as I did or saw the way it fell in real time as I did you would know that the fires were most certainly not out after the explosions.
What common sense will tell you if a building is filled with fuel that found a spark like oh say PAPER, furniture, and carpeting it is going to burn like a motherfucker conspiracy theories aside it doesn't just go out by itself it burns Benny Boo it burns!
It is apparent to me you couldn't have possibly read all ten plus pages and discounted all of the reports from different agencies. Not all of them are associated with Fema mind you but if you want to believe in hocus pocus by all means and lest we forget all of the proof from the nut cases please provide the links from your reliable sources dearest. I'm going to bet that your proof comes from a nut site like AttackonAmerica.net or some other clone of it.

Here are some of Attack on Americas claim's;

"Melted" Steel
Claim: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength — and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.


So there you go Benny boo.
This concludes my "Debunking of Benny's conspiracy theories" part 1
C.B.

Some how you are tring to debunk me, this is SD&D and is not the case.
The Fires' Impact
How the Towers' Fires Affected the Structural Steel
As an exercise let's set aside all of the evidence about the actual severity of the Twin Towers' fires, and imagine that the fires were incredibly intense and widespread. Let's imagine that the jets were full tankers and spilled 80,000 gallons of fuel into each tower. Let's imagine that there was a strong wind giving the fires plenty of air. Let's imagine that the the fires engulfed over 10 floors in each tower, saturating the capacity of the steel buildings to draw away the heat. Let's imagine the fires burned intensely for hours, completely gutting several stories of each tower. Would that cause them to collapse? Not according to people who have studied steel structures subjected to such stresses. The following passage is from Appendix A of FEMA's World Trade Center Building Performance Study.

In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments).

This graph represents strength as a function of temperature, which is expressed in degrees Celsius ©.

At temperatures above 800° C structural steel loses 90 percent of its strength. 1 Yet even when steel structures are heated to those temperatures, they never disintegrate into piles of rubble, as did the Twin Towers and Building 7. Why couldn't such dramatic reductions in the strength of the steel precipitate such total collapse events?

High-rise buildings are over-engineered to have strength many times greater than would needed to survive the most extreme conditions anticipated. It may take well over a ten-fold reduction in strength to cause a structural failure.
If a steel structure does experience a collapse due to extreme temperatures, the collapse tends to remain localized to the area that experienced the high temperatures.
The kind of low-carbon steel used in buildings and automobiles bends rather than shatters. If part of a structure is compromised by extreme temperatures, it may bend in that region, conceivably causing a large part of the structure to sag or even topple. However, there is no example of a steel structure crumbling into many pieces because of any combination of structural damage and heating, outside of the alleged cases of the Twin Towers and Building 7.

Collapse Features
Characteristics of the Twin Towers' Destruction and What They Show
The total destructions of the two towers were almost identical. The most apparent difference is that the top of the South Tower tipped for a few seconds before falling, whereas the top of the North Tower telescoped straight down from the start. Here are some of the principal characteristics of the destructions, based on study of the surviving evidence.

The cores were obliterated. There is no gravity collapse scenario that can account for the complete leveling of the massive columns of the towers' cores.
The perimeter walls were shredded. No gravity collapse scenario can account for the ripping apart of the three-column by three-floor prefabricated column and spandrel plate units along their welds.
Nearly all the concrete was pulverized in the air, so finely that it blanketed parts of Lower Manhattan with inches of dust. In a gravity collapse, there would not have been enough energy to pulverize the concrete until it hit the ground, if then.
The towers exploded into immense clouds of dust, which were several times the original volumes of the buildings by the time their disintegration reached the ground.
Parts of the towers were thrown 500 feet laterally. The downward forces of a gravity collapse cannot account for the energetic lateral ejection of pieces.
Explosive events were visible before many floors had collapsed. Since overpressures are the only possible explanations for the explosive dust plumes emerging from the buildings, the top would have to be falling to produce them in a gravity collapse. But in the South Tower collapse, energetic dust ejections are first seen while the top is only slightly tipping, not falling.
The towers' tops mushroomed into thick dust clouds much larger than the original volumes of the buildings. Without the addition of large sources of pressure beyond the collapse itself, the falling building and its debris should have occupied about the same volume as the intact building.
Explosive ejections of dust, known as squibs, occurred well below the mushrooming region in both of the tower collapses. A gravitational collapse explanation would account for these as dust from floors pancaking well down into the tower's intact region. But if the floors -- the only major non-steel building component -- were falling well below the mushrooming cloud above, what was the source of the dense powder in the cloud?
The halting of rotation of the South Tower's top as it began its fall can only be explained by its breakup.
The curves of the perimeter wall edges of the South Tower about 2 seconds into its "collapse" show that many stories above the crash zone have been shattered.
The tops fell at near the rate of free fall. The rates of fall indicate that nearly all resistance to the downward acceleration of the tops had been eliminated ahead of them. The forms of resistance, had the collapses been gravity-driven, would include: the destruction of the structural integrity of each story; the pulverization of the concrete in the floor slabs of each story, and other non-metallic objects; and the acceleration of the remains of each story encountered either outward or downward. There would have to be enough energy to overcome all of these forms of resistance and do it rapidly enough to keep up with the near free-fall acceleration of the top.
Explosions
Explosive Events in the Twin Towers
While the explosive nature of the events that destroyed the Twin Towers is evident in their gross features such as the mushrooming of the tops and the huge clouds of concrete dust produced in the air, there are many specific observations that point to the detonations of explosions within the towers.

Eyewitness Reports





Many eyewitnesses who were near the South Tower when it began its precipitous collapse reported sights and sounds of explosions. Several accounts are described in the evidence section.

Energetic Ejections of Dust and Objects
Explosive ejection of dust early in the collapse of the South Tower is clearly visible in the NBC video taken from far to the east, and in still frames from that video, portions of five of which are shown on the right. In addition to the large ejections of white dust from the left wall, the video shows a small high-speed ejection toward the back of the right wall, visible as a small white fleck in the first frame to the right.

Many of the photographs of the tower collapses show solid objects, such as sections of steel columns and aluminum cladding of the outer walls, being thrown ahead of the expanding dust cloud. This pattern is characteristic of explosive demolitions. According to Chapter 1 of FEMA's own report pieces of the steel columns and plates of the perimeter walls were thrown over 500 feet from the towers. The distribution pattern they diagram suggests that, with both towers, perimeter wall pieces were thrown an average of about 150 to 200 feet outward. This is corroborated by the shape of the vertical holes in WTC 6.

South Tower Demolition Wave
A three-second movie shows about 2.5 seconds of the South Tower collapse starting at about three seconds into the plunge of the tower's top. The short movie shows the roughly spherical debris cloud nearly double in size, even accounting for the perspective. The leading edge of the wave is about to reach the 44th-floor sky lobby when the camera operator turns to run. The movie (mpeg) was found on plaguepuppy's cafe with the following description.

Though the view of the building is brief, looking at it in slow motion reveals some peculiar features. At the very start of the clip we can see how perfectly even the collapse is, advancing with what looks for all the world like rows of explosions progressing in a perfectly straight line around the building, and advancing down in an extremely uniform way. As the demolition wave advances there is only dust and smoke where the top of the building used to be, and a great quantity of dust mixed with small pieces of structural steel is ejected out horizontally at high speed. To account for this very rapid ejection of debris without the use of high explosives, especially in the early stages of the collapse, seems quite impossible.

If you look closely as the wave travels down it seems to spare the corners, perhaps letting them lag behind to help keep the implosion aligned. The demolition wave is clearly advancing ahead of the actual collapse of the structure, and speeds up as it travels down. The delays between demolition charges would have to be very precisely controlled to create this effect, suggesting to me that each floor was wired to a separate detonator, with control of the sequencing most likely done remotely. This would also allow the collapse to be triggered from the point of impact of the plane to make it look more realistic. Such sequencing could easily be done from a laptop connected wirelessly to the towers, as long as each floor could be detonated separately.
Secondly I saw them come down myself and I don't need anyone to tell me that exploseves were used to pull all 3 buildings, I have known it since it happened.

[cigarbabe]

Benny which articles are you posting from?
You haven't given any indication of where you're taking these articles from.
I was joking obviously Benny with my statement
about "debunking your theories."
You cannot really theorize that a building
can withstand a 600mph jet crashing into it
unless you've actually done those tests on said skyscraper
and we know absolutely that has never been done.
I watched it happen too Benny and my brother was in the pentagon when it was hit.
Unless you set the "explosion yourself you can't know that you saw an explosion/implosion or any such thing.
You need to give us links to if you want us to not just dismiss your claims outright.
Could you tell me about the "magic bullet" in J.F.K.'s murder too?
C.B.

---

I shall be back later today with yet more articles
perhaps, to counter your theories Benny boo.
Goodnight all and have a "Gooey night"!
C.B.

[Benny2guns]

Benny which articles are you posting from?
You haven't given any indication of where you're taking these articles from.
I was joking obviously Benny with my statement
about "debunking your theories."
You cannot really theorize that a building
can withstand a 600mph jet crashing into it
unless you've actually done those tests on said skyscraper
and we know absolutely that has never been done.
I watched it happen too Benny and my brother was in the pentagon when it was hit.
Unless you set the "explosion yourself you can't know that you saw an explosion/implosion or any such thing.
You need to give us links to if you want us to not just dismiss your claims outright.
Could you tell me about the "magic bullet" in J.F.K.'s murder too?
C.B.

---

I shall be back later today with yet more articles
perhaps, to counter your theories Benny boo.
Goodnight all and have a "Gooey night"!
C.B.

I have already given the link to this info so your lack of knowledge proves to me and everyone reading this that you have no intention of reading any info in any links put up for it, these are excerpts from it, so I sudgest you start over and read all of the information supplied and stop with the taunting in SD&D. With-in the given links are links to further sources. There is no question in my mind that a building certainly can be designed to withstand a plane or a jet flying into it. Thats what we do, we use science to design these things. No mater where you were when you saw this happen if you remove the shock and aw effect of two planes crashing into those towers you will see what everyone else see's that questions the original official story.
How dare you accuse me of such a thing. That will be enough of that. I could care less who you are.
Squibs
High-Velocity "Demolition Squibs" Are Visible in the Twin Towers' Collapses

A horizontal jet emerges from the northwest face of the North Tower.
Squibs are "blasting caps (initiators) used in the explosive industry to set off high explosives." 1 In discussions of the collapses of the WTC skyscrapers, the term has been appropriated to describe the physical appearance of puffs or jets of dust emerging from buildings during a demolition, caused by the detonation of explosive charges. Several such "squibs" can be seen in videos and photographs capturing the collapses of the North and South Towers.

It has been suggested that the evident squibs could have been added to the photographs and videos after the fact, given that much of this evidence has found its way onto the web via undocumented routes. However, the squibs show up in many diverse videos and photographs, and we have not been able to find any showing the squibs to be absent. A conspiracy of incredible proportions would be required to forge such convincing evidence of squibs in such diverse sources.

Squibs in the North Tower
Some of the clearest visual evidence of squibs in the North Tower is found in a video bearing the KTLA 5 banner. It shows two very distinct squibs emerging from the North Tower's northwest side, which is in profile on the tower's right, at about two and five seconds into the collapse.

Photographs
The photograph on this page shows two puffs of dust emerging from the walls well below the expanding dust cloud. The position and timing of the one on the northwest (right) face suggest that it is an early stage of the second squib seen in the KTLA 5 video.


The puff in that photo on the northeast (left) side is also visible in the first photograph on this page, but the second squib on the northwest side has already been subsumed by the dust cloud.

The first photograph on this page shows a puff of dust to the right of the visible north corner of the North Tower. That appears to be the beginning of the first squib.

Most of the photographs of the North Tower collapse show it after the second squib has already been subsumed by the dust cloud. We can find no photographs of the North Tower that should show the squibs but do not.

Videos
Other broadcasts besides KTLA 5's showed one or both of the squibs on the tower's northwest wall. This video, taken from close to the North Tower's base, shows the first squib very distinctly as a conical jet of gases that are lighter in color than the expanding dust cloud above.

This video (in wmv format) clearly shows the second squib emerging from the North Tower's northwest side.

This video broadcast by CNN provides one of the most complete records of the North Tower's collapse. It hides the squibs behind the banner, but even so you can distinctly see the second squib through the bluish semi-transparent part of the banner.

Another video shows the two squibs as clearly as the KTLA 5 video, and from a similar vantage point. It is not available on this site, but is found on the video 911: The Greatest Lie Ever Sold.

Squibs in the South Tower

Broad dust ejections emerge from mechanical equipment floors of the South Tower.
Squibs are also apparent in the South Tower's collapse, though they don't appear to be as energetic as the two North Tower squibs examined above. In this photograph a red arrow highlights a row of puffs of dust emerging from the southeast face of the South Tower about 10 floors below the bottom of the zone of total destruction.

The same squibs are clearly visible in the first two collapse sequences of this ABC News video montage of the South Tower collapse.

Gravity-Collapse Explanations
Defenders of the gravity collapse theory consistently invoke the explanation that the ejections of dust are caused by pancaking floors squeezing out air and dust. The Popular Mechanics article attacking 9/11 Truth contains the following passage.

Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air--along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse--was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."
NIST's final Report on the Twin Towers mentions the piston theory to attempt to explain away the ejections:

The falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it, much like the action of a piston, forcing material, such as smoke and debris, out the windows as seen in several videos.
There are several problems with this explanation, which we designate the piston theory.

The squibs contain thick dust of a light color, apparently from crushed concrete and gypsum. But these materials would not have been crushed until the pancaking floors above impacted the floor emitting the squib. Thus the dust would not be produced until the air was already squeezed out, so there was no source of the dust for the squib.
The squibs emerge from the facade 10 to 20 floors below the exploding rubble cloud inside of which the tower is disintegrating. The thick clouds appear to contain the pulverized concrete of the floor slabs, which was the only concrete component of the tower. But the piston theory requires that the floors have already pancaked down to the level of the squib, making them unavailable for the production of the concrete dust more than 10 floors above.
The piston theory requires a rather orderly pancaking of the floor diaphragms within the intact sleeve of the perimeter wall. Such a process should have left a stack of floor diaphragms at the tower's base at the end of the collapse. But there was no such stack. In fact, it is difficult to find recognizable pieces of floor slabs of any size in Ground Zero photographs.
The North Tower exhibits three distinct sets of squibs at different elevations of the building. Each set is visible as two distinct squibs on the same floor, one emerging from about the horizontal center of each of the tower's two visible faces. This pattern is is far too focused and symmetric to be explained by the piston theory, which would produce similar pressures across each floor and over successive floors.
The pancaking of floors within the perimeter wall would have created underpressures in the region above the top pancaking floor. But we seen no evidence of dust being sucked back into the tower.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shattering of Structure
The Twin Towers' Frames Disintegrated Before Falling

This photograph shows the top of the South Tower disintegrating as it has only just begun to fall. Note the curves in the edges of the walls above the zone of collapse.
There is clear visual evidence that the structural frames of many stories above the impact zones in both towers were shattered before the tops had fallen significant distances. The evidence is particularly strong in the case of the South Tower.

A movie taken from the east gives one of the most complete records of the South Tower collapse. The motion of the top revealed by the movie has some very strange features. At first the motion consists of a tipping of the approximately 30 stories above the impact zone as a unit, about a fulcrum in or around the impact zone. The tipping motion accelerates for about 2.5 seconds. Then, at about the time the first large ejections of dust start at the impact zone, the motion of the top changes: It begins to fall precipitously, and its rotation (imparted by the tipping) rapidly decelerates and virtually ceases after a second.

The rapid downward acceleration indicates that the fulcrum has been destroyed. This is difficult to reconcile with a gravity-driven collapse. Since the top had already tipped about 15 degrees, the downward force on the building's structure below the fulcrum was already decreasing. One would expect the tipping to continue, eventually resulting in the top falling like a tree.

Disappearing Angular Momentum
The deceleration of the top's rotation is even more discrediting to the idea of a gravity-driven collapse, which cannot explain the documented changes in angular momentum. Conservation of angular momentum is the tendency of a rotating solid object to continue rotating at the same rate in the absence of torque. Initially the block consisting of the top 30 stories of the tower acted as a solid object, and rotated about a fulcrum near the impact zone. Although the fulcrum was the axis of rotation, the block had two types of momentum: the angular momentum of the block around its center of gravity, and the linear momentum of its center of gravity tilting away from the tower's vertical axis. When the portion of the building below the collapse zone disintegrated, the block would preserve its angular momentum by continuing to rotate at the same rate (but the acceleration of the rotation would cease due to the removal of the torque that was being applied by intact columns at the fulcrum). But in reality, the rotation of the block rapidly decelerated as the downward plunge began. Once the fall started, any resistance it encountered from parts of the building would have imparted torque on the block in the same direction as the original fulcrum, and would have accelerated its rotation.

Given the apparent absence of any torque to counter the rotation of the block, the slowing of its rotation can only be explained by the breakup of most of the block, which would have destroyed its moment of inertia.
Concrete Pulverization
Twin Towers' Concrete Turned to Dust in Mid-Air
A striking feature of the Twin Towers' destruction was the pulverization of most of the concrete into gravel and dust before it hit the ground. This is evident from the explosive mushrooming of the towers into vast clouds of concrete as they fell, and from the fact that virtually no large pieces of concrete were found at Ground Zero, only twisted pieces of steel. 1 Estimates put the size of the particles, which also included gypsum and hydrocarbons, in the ten- to 100-micron range. 2


Some idea of the volume of the dust clouds can be obtained by examining photographs taken shortly after each tower collapsed.

The researcher calling himself plaguepuppy articulated the thoroughness of the destruction and its incompatibility with the official explanation.

In trying to come to terms with what actually happened during the collapse of the World Trade Towers, the biggest and most obvious problem that I see is the source of the enormous amount of very fine dust that was generated during the collapses. Even early on, when the tops of the buildings have barely started to move, we see this characteristic fine dust (mixed with larger chunks of debris) being shot out very energetically from the building. During the first few seconds of a gravitational fall nothing is moving very fast, and yet from the outset what appears to be powdered concrete can be seem blowing out to the sides, growing to an immense dust cloud as the collapse progresses.

The floors themselves are quite robust. Each one is 39" thick; the top 4" is a poured concrete slab, with interlocking vertical steel trusses (or spandrel members) underneath. This steel would absorb a lot of kinetic energy by crumpling as one floor fell onto another, at most pulverizing a small amount of concrete where the narrow edges of the trusses strike the floor below. And yet we see a very fine dust being blown very energetically out to the sides as if the entire mass of concrete (about 400,000 cubic yards for the whole building) were being converted to dust. Remember too that the tower fell at almost the speed of a gravitational free-fall, meaning that little energy was expended doing anything other than accelerating the floor slabs.

Considering the amount of concrete in a single floor (~1 acre x 4") and the chemical bond energy to be overcome in order to reduce it to a fine powder, it appears that a very large energy input would be needed. The only source for this, excluding for now external inputs or explosives, is the gravitational potential energy of the building. Any extraction of this energy for the disaggregation of the concrete would decrease the amount available for conversion to kinetic energy, slowing the speed of the falls. Yet we know that the buildings actually fell in about 9 seconds*, only slightly less than an unimpeded free-fall from the same height. This means that very little of the gravitational energy can have gone toward pulverizing the concrete.

Even beyond the question of the energy needed, what possible mechanism exists for pulverizing these vast sheets of concrete? Remember that dust begins to appear in quantity in the very earliest stages of the collapses, when nothing is moving fast relative to anything else in the structure. How then is reinforced concrete turned into dust and ejected laterally from the building at high speed?


Evidence indicates that the hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete in the Twin Towers was converted almost entirely to dust.
Both reports of workers at Ground Zero and photographs of the area attest to the thoroughness of the pulverization of the concrete and other non-metallic solids in the towers. 3 An examination of our extensive archives of images of Ground Zero and its immediate surroundings reveals no recognizable objects such as slabs of concrete, glass, doors, or office furniture. The identifiable constituents of the rubble can be classified into just five categories:

pieces of steel from the towers' skeletons
pieces of aluminum cladding from the towers' exteriors
unrecognizable pieces of metal
pieces of paper
dust
Despite the presence of 400,000 cubic yards of concrete in each tower, the photographs reveal almost no evidence of macroscopic pieces of its remains.

Pyroclastic Flows
Many observers have likened the Towers' destruction to volcanoes, noting that the Towers seemed to be transformed into columns of thick dust in the air. An article about seismic observations of events in New York City on 9/11/01, relates the observations of scientists Won-Young Kim, Lynn R. Sykes, J.H. Armitage:

The authors also noted that, as seen in television images, the fall of the towers was similar to a pyroclastic flow down a volcano, where hot dust and chunks of material descend at high temperatures. The collapse of the WTC generated such a flow, though without the high temperatures. 4
Vast Volumes of Dust
Dust From Collapses Expanded to Many Times The Towers' Volumes

This photograph shows the dust from the North Tower disintegration about 30 seconds after the start of its disintegration.
Both Towers exploded into vast dust clouds, which photographs show to be several times the volumes of the intact buildings by the time the destruction reached the ground. The dust clouds continued to expand rapidly thereafter, growing to easily five times the buildings' original volume by 30 seconds after the initiation of each collapse.

The dust clouds rapidly invaded the surrounding city, filling the cavernous spaces between nearby skyscrapers in seconds. Eyewitness reports were consistent that it was impossible to outrun the dust clouds. Photographs can be used to calculate the speed at which the dust cloud from the North Tower grew. There is a photograph of the North Tower dust showing the spire and showing dust 700 feet in front of the nearest part of the building's footprint. That distance is calculated using buildings as reference points. Since it is known from real-time movies that the spire fell about 30 seconds after the initiation of the collapse, and that it took about 10 seconds for the bottom of the dust cloud to reach the ground, the average speed of advance on the ground in that direction was approximately 35 feet per second.

Another feature of the dust clouds was that they upwelled in immense columns, climbing to over the height of Building 7 (over 600 feet) in the seconds immediately after each collapse.

Such behavior clearly indicates the input of huge quantities of heat far in excess of what the friction of a gravity-driven collapse could produce.
Shredding of Steel
Twin Towers' Steel Frames Ripped to Small Pieces

This section of a larger photograph of the North Tower's destruction shows metal objects -- steel column sections and aluminum cladding -- being propelled away from the Tower.
A feature of the collapses that is less obvious than the symmetrically mushrooming tops or the vast clouds of concrete dust is their effect on the towers' steel frames.

The only large remnants of the towers standing after the collapses were base sections of the perimeter walls extending upward several stories. Some of these sections were about 200 feet wide by 80 feet tall. Virtually all of the remaining steel was broken up into small pieces:

There were no remnants of the core structures that rose much above the rubble piles.
Most of the perimeter walls above the standing bases were broken up into the three-floor by three-column prefabricated sections, and many of those sections were ripped apart at the welds.
There were no large sections of the corrugated pans underlaying the floor slabs or the trussing beneath them.
If it were possible for the towers to have collapsed of their own weight, they would have exhibited a pattern of destruction very different from this. What would the collapse look like if all structure throughout a tower suddenly lost 95 percent of its strength, leaving the building too weak to support gravity loads?
The core columns, being thicker than perimeter columns, and abundantly cross-braced, would have deflected falling rubble, and would have out-survived the perimeter walls.
The accumulation of forces as the collapse progressed would have damaged portions of the outer wall closer to the ground more than higher portions, despite the thicker gauge of the steel lower in the tower.
The rubble pile would have contained a stack of floor platters, since gravity would have pancaked, not shredded, them.

Symmetry
The Demolition-Like Symmetry of the Twin Towers' Falls

This photograph shows the South Tower about five seconds into its "collapse" from the west. This was the less symmetrical of the two collapses.
Getting buildings to fall vertically (i.e.: symmetrically about their vertical axes) is what the art and science of controlled demolition are all about. By causing a building to fall vertically into its footprint, demolitions experts avoid damage to surrounding buildings. This is achieved through the careful placement and timing of explosives so as to cause the simultaneous and symmetric failures of all the main structural supports. Given the strength and resilience of steel, the failure to break even one of the major columns in a steel-framed building could cause it to tip to one side as it collapsed.

It is inconceivable that any random event or combination of events, such as aircraft collisions, fires, or fuel tank explosions, could cause the simultaneous failure of all the support columns in a building -- especially a tall steel-framed building -- needed to cause it to collapse vertically.

Both of the Twin Tower collapses exhibited remarkable symmetry. The North Tower's collapse commenced suddenly. The top of the tower seemed to effortlessly telescope down into the intact portion of the building. The collapse remained symmetrical from start to finish. The South Tower's collapse behavior was more complex. Its top first tipped for about two seconds, then started to descend. Despite the initial asymmetry of the collapse, it became more and more symmetric after the top started to fall. Once the top disappeared into the enormous dust cloud, there was no further evidence that the top had started to topple, except for a leaning anvil-shaped cloud of darker dust.

The centered collapses meant the falling mass followed the path of maximum resistance. That's the opposite of how we expect a structure to behave when it falls apart in any kind of natural process. Even if the towers were made out of clay, we wouldn't expect them to collapse in such a dead-centered fashion. It's all the more incredible that a steel structure would shred itself by falling into itself instead of falling over.


These photographs show the South Tower from the south at about two seconds and eight seconds after its top started to plunge downward. They show that the collapse became more symmetric as it progressed. Any natural collapse would have become less symmetric as it progressed.
There are many examples of steel-framed buildings undergoing unintentional collapses as a result of severe earthquakes. In contrast to the destruction of the Twin Towers, no such collapses have been vertical or total -- let alone explosive. Rather, steel-framed buildings destroyed by earthquakes have toppled.
Mushrooming Tops
The Twin Towers' Tops Mushroomed As They Fell

In this photograph of the South Tower about six seconds into its destruction, the mushrooming cloud has already grown to three times the building's width. Note the dust ejection well below the mushrooming top (red arrow).
Both of the twin towers exhibited a mushrooming behavior as they collapsed, resulting in the dispersion of their steel over areas several times the size of their footprints. The mushrooming plumes of dense dust and steel began at the impact zones, and rapidly expanded. By about five seconds into each collapse the diameter of the mushrooming plume was about three times the diameter of the tower.

It is not immediately obvious to what extent the mass of the destroyed portion of the towers was dispersed throughout the clouds. However, several pieces of evidence show that most of the towers' mass landed outside of their footprints in a highly symmetric distribution.

Photographs of the collapses show that many pieces of metal were hurled far from the towers, slightly beyond the frontiers of the dust clouds. Although some of that material may be the exterior aluminum cladding, several photos show large assemblies of the perimeter walls hundreds of feet from the towers.
The huge hole in WTC 6 seems only explainable as the result of falling pieces of the north wall of the North Tower. The centerline of that hole is approximately 150 feet away from the tower's north wall, giving an indication of the average lateral distance its steel constituents were thrown.
The mounds of twisted steel pieces at Ground Zero were nearly as high outside of the towers' footprints as within.
There are no photographs of the mushrooming tops of the towers in FEMA's official report -- just one poor photo of the South Tower early in its collapse -- but there is a nice graphic of the distribution of the perimeter wall column pieces (right).
Speed of Fall
The Towers' Tops Fell Virtually Unimpeded
The time it took the Towers to fall may be one of the most important pieces of evidence in determining their mode of destruction.

It is widely accepted that both Towers completely fell (nearly everything but the dust reached the ground) in around ten seconds. This estimate appears to be based mainly on seismic data. However, video evidence of the North Tower collapse suggests that it took close to 15 seconds for the destruction to reach the ground. Establishing a precise time of duration for each fall may not be possible, but there are measurements that can be made. Video records show that each Tower's top began its fall precipitously, and show the falling tops for a few seconds before they disappeared into the exploding dust clouds. It is also possible to track other features of the waves of destruction that traveled down each Tower. In both collapses dust clouds, exhibiting the behavior of pyroclastic flows associated with volcanoes, rapidly grew as they fell. 1 Each cloud consumed its Tower's top in a few seconds, then continued to descend, remaining centered around the Tower's axis. Each cloud had a fairly well-defined top and bottom, whose descent can be timed using video records.

Despite the availability of detailed studies of collapse times based on the compositing of video and photographic evidence, and in-depth analysis of the seismic records, many commentors have incorrectly treated the durations of the largest seismic signals as synonymous with total collapse times. Statements that the Towers fell in eight and ten seconds have been repeated by both proponents and critics of the official explanation.


Meaning of the Seismic Records
Seismic records of the Twin Tower collapses show a large signal for each collapse lasting just under 10 seconds. The durations of the large signals are widely equated with the durations of the collapses themselves. However, the signals may correspond to only parts of the collapse events, such as the rubble reaching the ground.

Consider the seismic records of the closest seismic recording station, at Palisades, NY (PAL). They show a very similar pattern for the leveling of WTC 1 and 2. In both cases there is about five seconds of high-amplitude movement, followed by about three seconds of movement at less than half that amplitude, and then by about 15 seconds of much weaker movement. In addition there is some still weaker movement starting about 12 seconds before the onsets of the high-amplitude movement. The main difference is that for WTC 1 the initial high-amplitude phase builds in intensity to a much higher spike than any seen for WTC 2.
The fact that the largest movement is followed by smaller movement has been cited as evidence that bombs, detonated at the starts of the collapses, generated the large movement, and that the debris impacting the ground contributed to the smaller subsequent movement. However, bombs, if detonated underground, would have generated strong P waves in addition to S waves. The fact that only strong S waves were reported is consistent with the theory that the largest movement was caused by building remains hitting the ground.

Tracking the Tops
The time of onset of collapse is clear in the North Tower, which initiates its telescoping collapse in an instant. The case of the South Tower is complicated by the fact that the top leans for a few seconds before beginning its vertical descent. Although determining the onset of vertical collapse in the South Tower is more difficult, its top is visible for longer and offers a longer span through which to time the rate of fall.

The South Tower
The following analysis is based on this NBC video taken from east of the Towers.

For the South Tower we define onset of collapse as the moment downward movement of the highest point of the roof starts. Unfortunately this time is difficult to determine since the roofline is obscured by smoke when the fall begins. The fall is preceded by a leaning movement that starts at about the beginning of the video clip, and accelerates for about three seconds. At somewhere between two and three seconds, the top starts to fall. Once the top starts to lean, the highest point of the roof is the northwest edge. At about 2.5 seconds, the top starts to fall. A good marker for this is a small white squib that emerges from the level of the impact zone about three-quarters of the way back on the right face. That immediately precedes the first large ejections from the southeast face.

Using that marker it is possible to time the fall of the South Tower's top up to the moment it gets swallowed up by the dust cloud. At that point the dust cloud rises only slightly above the level of the 78th-floor sky lobby visible as a two-story band on the adjacent North Tower. A small extrapolation gives a good estimate of the time of fall of the South Tower's roof to the level of the 78th floor of five seconds. That distance is about 384 feet (12 feet per story times 32 stories).

The North Tower
The top of the North Tower began to suddenly telescope about a fourth of a second after the radio Tower started to fall. In views from the north the top is swallowed up in about two seconds. The CNN live video clip shows the mushrooming dust cloud reaching the ground at about 13 seconds. As the descending pyroclastic dust cloud drops below Building 7, the rising smoke plume shifts to the east revealing the empty space except for the short-lived spire. The first glimpse of empty space where the building stood is at about 13 seconds.

Detailed analysis of the motion of the North Tower's top is provided by physics teacher David Chandler, who measured the top and concluded that, the rapid descent of the top, though slightly slower than free-fall, means that the force it exerts on the intact portion is actually less then when the building is motionless.

The roofline of WTC1 (The North Tower) begins dropping with sudden onset and accelerates uniformly downward at about 64% of the acceleration of gravity (g) until it disappears into the dust. This means it is meeting resistance equal to about 36% of its weight. The implication of this, however, is that the force it is exerting on the lower section of the building is also only 36% of the weight of the falling section. This is much less than the force it would exert if it were at rest. The acceleration data thus prove that the falling top section of the building cannot be responsible for the destruction of the lower section of the building. 2 3
A Timeline for the North Tower
It would be useful if collapse events evident in videos could be associated with seismic signal features. Since some news broadcasts have real-time clocks on their banners, it may be possible to match visual events with features of the seismic signals.

Consider the North Tower, whose entire collapse was recorded by the above-mentioned CNN live feed, which has a clock on its banner. That clock does not have a second counter, but its minute counter flips to 10:29 37 seconds after collapse starts, which places the collapse start, according to the CNN clock, at 10:28:23.

Various pages on columbia.edu put the origin time of the signal at the source at 10:28:31, plus or minus one second. This is based on an estimate of 2 km/s travel speed for the S waves, which, given the PAL station's distance of 34 KM from the WTC, gives a travel time of 17 seconds.

The CNN video suggests that it takes about ten seconds for the bottom of the mushrooming dust cloud to reach the ground, and another seven or so for the top to reach the ground. The following composite timeline combines timing estimates of collapse events from the CNN video and the PAL seismic record. It assumes rubble hitting the ground caused the large ground movement, and thus that the crumbling of the Tower prior to that caused only minor ground movement. Given that, the times from these pieces of evidence match up remarkably well.
Visit the afore mentioned website for pic's and video links.

[billy]

the towers.

each floor only supports a the floor above it and a bit more.
its a bit like on the american football field. one player after another jumps on the quarter back, each player supports the next. you drop all that weight at once on the quarter back and he's crushed.
the same happened with the towers. the plane hit. stripped some of the steel of their fire protection. the jet fuel burnt for a short while and the steel while not melting warped. as soon as the steel warped even a fraction. the weight of the floor above it grew exponentially to the weight of the whole building about it. like the buttress of a cathedral the weight of the roof travels down through the buttress and in doing so is fully supported. twist of move the buttress and the roof collapses.

the steel on each floor allows the weight of the floor above it to flow downward. the weight isn't trying to push the steal sideways, it's impossible for it to do so. but once the steel is warped which is what happens if it get red hot. (steel will glow red hot at 600 degrees or even less. ) put a knife over a a calor or propane gas flame and see for yourself. (gas burns at about 600 degrees. try it and see) it will turn cherry red. in this state the metal is liable to bend and fold under excessive weight. once it does bend, even fractionally the weight above has more force. the weight above now has movement as an added force (velocity) because of this added velocity the weight grows.

example. a fist weighs 1 kilo if you move it fast enough it can have over 400 kilo of weight, the bigger the mass the less velocity it needs to have a lot bigger force. just moving at an inch an hour the weight of the building would have a tremendous amount of extra energy.

i think it was traveling much faster than that. so on one or two floors the steel got hot (didn't melt) and warped. after that it couldn't support what was above it. as for windows popping out as if they were exploding before the collapse got to that floor; air pressure. the pressure in the floors below the falling floors would have had a tremendous pressure exerted upon them. it would make no difference if every door was locked and bolted. they would have been blown off like matchwood. the resulting pressure wave for so much weight would have been huge.
the collapse of the building started slow. then it pick up speed as each successive floor collapsed. that it they fell was inevitable.

build a pyramid of cards and take one out, the pyramid collapses.

stand an egg on it end and you can stand on it. move it off center a fraction and it breaks .
but a board with a 100 nails on someones back and you can stand on it without injuring him. do the same thing with two or four nails and he's dead lmao.

it all boils down to stresses. it has little to do with melting or not melting.

if you simply heat steel and them it cools rapidly it becomes brittle. you effectively turn the steel into cast iron.
and sideways movement and it will break at the height that building was with the floor of windows blown out, the cooling would be very quick. again a building of that height has sideways movement. couple that with warped steel and the momentum of the upper floors and it would be a miracle if it didn't collapse. and not i have no links.

i don't need one to prove steel glows red hot at less than 600 degrees.
i don't need one to show that metal at 600 degrees can bend or warp under a small amount of weight ( it's why they fireproof them) if as you say they can withstand any heat higher than can be generated, why do they fire proof them?

i don't need a link about mass and momentum
i don't need a link about pressure waves and there existence from a collapsing mass.

i don't need them because these things are all fact.

i think they fell because the plane hit them.

[Benny2guns]

the towers.

each floor only supports a the floor above it and a bit more.
its a bit like on the american football field. one player after another jumps on the quarter back, each player supports the next. you drop all that weight at once on the quarter back and he's crushed.
the same happened with the towers. the plane hit. stripped some of the steel of their fire protection. the jet fuel burnt for a short while and the steel while not melting warped. as soon as the steel warped even a fraction. the weight of the floor above it grew exponentially to the weight of the whole building about it. like the buttress of a cathedral the weight of the roof travels down through the buttress and in doing so is fully supported. twist of move the buttress and the roof collapses.

the steel on each floor allows the weight of the floor above it to flow downward. the weight isn't trying to push the steal sideways, it's impossible for it to do so. but once the steel is warped which is what happens if it get red hot. (steel will glow red hot at 600 degrees or even less. ) put a knife over a a calor or propane gas flame and see for yourself. (gas burns at about 600 degrees. try it and see) it will turn cherry red. in this state the metal is liable to bend and fold under excessive weight. once it does bend, even fractionally the weight above has more force. the weight above now has movement as an added force (velocity) because of this added velocity the weight grows.

example. a fist weighs 1 kilo if you move it fast enough it can have over 400 kilo of weight, the bigger the mass the less velocity it needs to have a lot bigger force. just moving at an inch an hour the weight of the building would have a tremendous amount of extra energy.

i think it was traveling much faster than that. so on one or two floors the steel got hot (didn't melt) and warped. after that it couldn't support what was above it. as for windows popping out as if they were exploding before the collapse got to that floor; air pressure. the pressure in the floors below the falling floors would have had a tremendous pressure exerted upon them. it would make no difference if every door was locked and bolted. they would have been blown off like matchwood. the resulting pressure wave for so much weight would have been huge.
the collapse of the building started slow. then it pick up speed as each successive floor collapsed. that it they fell was inevitable.

build a pyramid of cards and take one out, the pyramid collapses.

stand an egg on it end and you can stand on it. move it off center a fraction and it breaks .
but a board with a 100 nails on someones back and you can stand on it without injuring him. do the same thing with two or four nails and he's dead lmao.

it all boils down to stresses. it has little to do with melting or not melting.

if you simply heat steel and them it cools rapidly it becomes brittle. you effectively turn the steel into cast iron.
and sideways movement and it will break at the height that building was with the floor of windows blown out, the cooling would be very quick. again a building of that height has sideways movement. couple that with warped steel and the momentum of the upper floors and it would be a miracle if it didn't collapse. and not i have no links.

i don't need one to prove steel glows red hot at less than 600 degrees.
i don't need one to show that metal at 600 degrees can bend or warp under a small amount of weight ( it's why they fireproof them) if as you say they can withstand any heat higher than can be generated, why do they fire proof them?

i don't need a link about mass and momentum
i don't need a link about pressure waves and there existence from a collapsing mass.

i don't need them because these things are all fact.

i think they fell because the plane hit them.

What you say makes a little sense to me but I don't think it happened that way for the simple reason that it has already been proven that it could and did not. Don't get me wrong as I really wish someone could prove the planes did bring them down but in reality they can not do so. I know a bit about steel myself and those beams were massive. we are not talking about your avarage 12 inch x 12 inch x 5/8 inch steel beams here, lol. I had used stell to build most of my life. I use oxy/accetl to heat and cut it with. You still have to heat them all evenly and at the correct spot to even begin to imagine this sort of senario happening. It would be pure fluke if one building came down straight into itself like that let alone 3 of them and from only 2 strikes. It is just way to far past what I can grasp as non fiction. There have been other fires way worse than the towers that caused no such destruction. I could have had no problem with the part above what was hit with the plane droping to one side and then some how bringing the building down but in no way straight down.
Proofs of Demolition
Demolition of the Twin Towers is Provable Through Simple Analysis
Despite the destruction of the most significant evidence of the Twin Tower collapses -- the structural steel -- it is relatively easy to prove the towers were demolished. Determining how they were demolished without the benefit of the steel may be difficult or impossible, but proving that a gravity-driven collapse is insufficient to explain the characteristics of the collapses documented by photographic and seismic evidence is not.

There are numerous pieces of evidence that strongly indicate demolition, including the fact that authorities destroyed and suppressed evidence, the more than 100 years of engineering experience with steel-frame buildings, the misleading representation of the towers' design by truss theory proponents and the implausible sequence of events proposed by that theory, and the many collapse features that seem irreconcilable with gravity-driven collapses.

Proving demolition requires more than enumerating evidence. It requires making logical inferences about events using the evidence. Three fairly strong proofs are as follows. These are presented as qualitative arguments only. Each suggests an approach for developing a rigorous quantitative proof.

The towers fell faster than they could have if they were crushing themselves.
The volume of dust was too great to have been the product of a gravity-driven collapse.
The South Tower's top shattered before falling, and so its breakup was not a result of gravity-driven crushing.


Speed of Fall
Twin Towers' Rates of Fall Proves Demolition
Each of the Twin Towers fell completely in intervals of time similar to that taken for a block of wood dropped from a tower's roof to reach the ground. A block of wood has about the same average density as the main components of the towers near their tops.

In a vacuum, a block of wood (or lead) would take 9.2 seconds to fall from the tower's roof. In the air a block of wood, say ten inches on a side, might take 50 percent longer than in a vacuum. Fifteen seconds, a good estimate for the total time of collapse of the North Tower, is about the time it would take our block to fall from the roof. The rubble from the Tower probably had similar average density to our block of wood, since the floor slabs consisted of corrugated sheet metal and lightweight concrete, and the perimeter steel columns were hollow with walls only 1/4th inch thick at the Towers' tops. Air resistance alone could account for the slowing of the falls to the point where each Tower took about 15 seconds to completely come down.

The official story requires that more than air resistance was slowing the descents. The falling rubble would be having to crush every story below the crash zone -- ripping apart the steel grids of the outer walls and obliterating the steel lattice of the core structure. The resistance of the intact building itself would be thousands of times greater than air resistance.

If air resistance is able to increase total collapse times by even 20 percent, then shouldn't the addition of the resistance of the buildings themselves increase the time several thousand percent, to at least tens of minutes?

Of course the idea of a collapse lasting minutes is absurd. So is the idea of a steel frame building crushing itself.
Volume of Dust
Volume of Dust Clouds Proves Demolition
Both of the Twin Towers exploded into vast clouds of dust. That the clouds expanded to five times the volume of the towers within 30 seconds of the initiation of their collapses is a conservative estimate.

If the collapses were merely gravity-driven, then any clouds of debris produced in the immediate aftermath should have occupied about the same amount of space as the intact towers before they had time to significantly mix into the surrounding air. The bulk of the clouds could only come from the expulsion of gases in the buildings as they collapsed, and the mixing of ambient air into the clouds. The contribution of mixing increases over time, and is unbounded. However, the dust clouds appear to expand more rapidly than can be accounted for by mixing. This implies that heat energy was being added to the clouds in order to cause the gases to expand, and/or water to vaporize.

Could the known energy sources have accounted for the pre-mixing expansion? This question is treated in some quantitative detail in the paper: The North Tower's Dust Cloud: Analysis of Energy Requirements for the Expansion of the Dust Cloud Following the Collapse of 1 World Trade Center. This paper estimates the dust cloud volume of the North Tower and shows that, even allowing for expansion due to mixing, the heat sink is many times greater than the tower's gravitational energy. Even without such quantitative analysis, it is clear that the gravitational energy of the towers alone could not have driven the dust clouds' expansion, given limitations on conversion of that energy to heat and the apparent absence of extensive mixing early in the clouds' development.

The expansion of the dust clouds presents problems for the gravity collapse theory that are evident without quantitative analysis. Here we consider the role of the two main factors that could have worked to expand the dust clouds.

Heating of the air due to friction of the collapse
Mixing of the cloud's gases and suspended solids with ambient air

Did Friction Multiply the Clouds' Volumes?
Suppose that nearly all of the gravitational energy of the towers was converted into friction and therefore heat. Would that have been sufficient to expand the dust clouds? A clue is that in a typical demolition, the volume of the dust cloud grows to only slightly larger than the intact building's volume immediately following the collapse. Even if the gravitational potential energy of the towers was great enough to drive the expansion, it is highly doubtful that much of it would be converted into heat in the dust clouds, for several reasons.

Rubble falling through the air would not generate much heat energy until it hit the ground, and then most of the energy would be converted to ground movement and the finer breakup of the rubble rather than heat.
Rubble crushing the building would convert much of its kinetic energy to friction in the steel frame in the process of shredding it. The steel frame would not have enough surface area to transfer much heat to the gases during the split second in which the building around any given piece of steel was crushed, so most of the heat would have ended up in the rubble pile.
If much of the gravitational energy was converted to heat through friction, it would have necessitated longer collapse times than were observed.
At least one academic paper has attempted to explain the rapidity of the collapses by promoting a questionably applicable mathematical model alleged to predict a nearly frictionless total collapse. Since that model has each tower neatly pulling itself down at near the speed of free-fall, there would be very little heat produced to drive the dust cloud expansion.

Did Mixing Expand the Clouds?
Mixing of building air with ambient air could not account for the rapidity of the expansion of the dust clouds, nor their appearance. Mixing of gases can occur through diffusion or convection. Diffusion is not relevant, since it is the space occupied by suspended particles that defines the volume of the cloud. Convection could only expand the cloud if there was a high degree of turbulence on the cloud's boundary, and would have produced a diffuse boundary. That does not appear to have occurred in the early stages of the Twin Towers' dust clouds. The clouds maintained well-defined interfaces as they expanded to many times the buildings' volumes. Moreover, features on the surface of the clouds evolved slowly relative to the movement of large portions of the cloud. The distinct boundaries and persistent shapes mean the clouds were expanding primarily by pushing aside the ambient air, not by assimilating it.
Breakup of WTC 2's Top
Shattering of South Tower's Top Proves Demolition
There are several pieces of evidence that show the structure of the 30 stories of the South Tower above the impact zone was shattered before it started its precipitous plunge. How could the steel frame of many stories above the impact zone have broken up even before it started to fall? The proponents of gravity-driven collapse maintain that the tops of the towers crushed the floors below the impact zones as they fell. The tops functioned as pistons, according to Bazant and Zhou, crushing the stories one by one. What one actually sees in the case of the South Tower is that their piston disintegrated even before it started to fall. A gravity-driven collapse cannot account for that disintegration, nor for how a cloud of rubble could crush the intact structure below the impact zone.


These frames from a South Tower collapse video are separated by equal time intervals. Examining the middle edge of the falling portion of the tower shows that its angle of tilt from vertical remains about the same between the second and third frames, and therefore the top has stopped rotating. But unless the top had already been shattered, it should have continued to rotate in accordance with the law of conservation of angular momentum.
Collapse Theories
Theories Gravity Caused the Twin Towers to Crush Themselves
The official story of the collapse of the Twin Towers is that gravity caused them to crush themselves. The impacts and fires weakened the buildings near the the crash zones but it was gravity that did the work of demolishing them. There are principally two official theories:

The column failure theory
The truss failure theory
Both theories are frequently called pancake theories because the pancake metaphor subtly suggests the buildings consisted primarily of heavy floor slabs, not vertical pillars of steel. Variants of the column failure theory were the first out of the block. They ask us to believe that all of the columns on one level suddenly failed, causing the overhanging portion of the tower to fall at least a floor, thereby acquiring enough momentum to crush the intact portion of the tower, floor-by-floor.

The column failure theory would suffice for scientific papers and insurance claims, but the American public would require something less obviously inconsistent with the reality that the columns of entire floors were not glowing red-hot. Hence the truss failure theory was presented on popular science shows, and endorsed by FEMA's official report. It asks us to believe that the fires weakened floor trusses, causing a whole floor diaphragm to fall, initiating a chain reaction of floor failures. That is supposed to lead to the collapse of the perimeter walls and core structures, an idea made more palatable by hiding the towers' core structures, or misrepresenting them as mechanically unsubstantial.

Progressive Collapse
The experts gave us the cool-sounding progressive collapse to help sell the collapse theories, whether they emphasize falling floors or buckling columns. But does it apply to steel structures? Some structures do fall apart under their own weight if sufficiently weakened or disturbed, such as burned wood-frame houses, or earthquake-fractured masonry buildings. Steel structures are not known to, outside of rare cases, but perhaps they could be designed to. Getting a steel structure to crumble from the top down -- as in the alleged progressive collapse phenomenon -- is an even greater challenge.

Not only is top-down progressive collapse completely unknown in other steel structures, we know of no documented case of it using any materials. Hence we have created the progressive collapse challenge. We believe the first two challenges are possible. Some variant of the following construction may work.

Construct a tower by balancing thin cylinders upright in rows around the perimeter of a square plate. Balance a second plate on the tops of the cylinders, and arrange similar rows of cylinders on it. Repeat this arrangement of alternating plates and cylinders for the height of the tower.
If such a structure were disturbed near the top, it could come tumbling down, and the collapse just might start at the zone of the disturbance and progress downward.

Other Theories
In addition to the officially endorsed column failure and truss failure theories, other theories have been volunteered to explain the explosive disintegration of the towers, while also ignoring or denying demolition. Some of these are identified in a taxonomy of collapse theories.

[billy]

so where is osama hiding?

certainly not the twin towers

i still think he's alive and in Afghanistan.

[Benny2guns]

so where is osama hiding?

certainly not the twin towers

i still think he's alive and in Afghanistan.

I heard he was in Jamaica man on vacation with George.
The Column Failure Theory
Wherein All the Columns Suddenly Become as Wet Noodles
Any explanation of the total collapse of the towers would have to account for the collapse of the columns extending the height of the towers. The column failure theory maintains that fire stress to the columns, combined with structural damage from the crashes, was sufficient to level the towers.

The column failure theory was rolled out days after the attack to replace the claims of "structural engineers" on the day of the attack that the jet fuel had melted the towers' steel. It requires that all of the columns on a story reach temperatures of 800º Celsius, well below the over-1500-degree melting point of steel. At 800º C, the steel would lose about 90% of its strength and the weight of the building above would cause the columns to buckle, and the top to begin to fall, according to the theory.

Column failure theory proponents usually invoke some combination of structural damage and fire stress to explain total collapse. Structural damage is used to explain the insufficiency of fire stress and vice versa, in a kind of circular argument.

Actual Conditions
Fires have never caused column failure in steel buildings before, but could the structural damage and fuel load from the jets have created conditions for column failure never before achieved? Perhaps theoretically, but the evidence of the actual structural damage and fires in the Twin Towers precludes those conditions.



FEMA diagrammed estimated column damage for both impacts. They show about 13 percent of the North Tower's perimeter columns broken, and 10 percent of the South Tower's broken.

The fuselage of the jet that crashed into the South Tower appears to have almost entirely missed the core structure.
Structural Damage
The impacts damaged less than 15 percent of the perimeter columns in either tower. The South Tower's core columns apparently escaped significant damage.

People in the towers at the time of the impacts reported sways of several feet, but the deflection was not large enough to be noticeable in any of the video footage. The sways were less than the towers experienced in winter storms.
The North Tower impact destroyed from 31 to 36 of the 240 perimeter columns (according to FEMA) and an unknown number of core columns.
The South Tower impact destroyed about 23 of the 240 perimeter columns, and probably did not damage many of the core columns. The impact hole indicates that the fuselage entered on the right end of the middle third of the southwest wall, and videos show it exiting the east corner. That implies that the plane's trajectory through the building caused the fuselage to almost entirely miss the core structure. The fact there was a passable stairwell in the core after the crash also suggests there was minimal structural damage.
Thus both towers lost less than an eighth of their perimeter columns, and the South Tower lost little of its core. Each of the impact holes were confined to five floors. The North Tower's impact was so high -- just 15 lightweight stories from the top -- that no amount of structural damage to that portion of the core would threaten the whole building. The highly redundant connection of perimeter columns via the horizontal spandrell plates on every floor assured that gravity loads of the broken columns were easily transferred to other parts of the wall.

Fire Severity
The fires were not nearly hot enough to significantly soften steel in either tower. The fires in the South Tower were small compared to other serious high-rise fires, and were diminishing at the time of its collapse.

In both towers, the smoke darkened a few minutes after the crashes, suggesting that most of the jet fuel had burned off. Smoke from the South Tower never lightened. Dark smoke indicates oxygen-starved fires.
In both towers, there were no visible areas of fire extending to large portions of multiple adjacent floors. Hot fires would have to simultaneously cover several entire floors to have any chance of heating the columns to 800º C.
The fires remained confined to the crash zone in the South Tower, and never spread to the other side of the building. Strong fires tend to spread.
The exterior columns were not visibly glowing red-hot, as they would have had they been above 700º C.

[Benny2guns]

i still think he's alive and in Afghanistan.

I think so too.

Unless he shaved his beard, dressed western, and got into Canada on a false passport.
He could be living on welfare in Toronto. The Americans can't do missile attacks on his home there.

The so called Americans can attack anywhere they wish.
The Truss Failure Theory
Fanciful Theory Doesn't Begin to Explain Total Collapse

Figure 2-20 from FEMA's Building Performance Study gives the impression that floors spanned the entire width of the Towers. The fine print indicates that the illustration depicts only a section of floors spanning the perimeter (left) and core (right).
The truss failure theory, a key ingredient of the better known floor pancake theory, was endorsed by FEMA in its 2002 World Trade Center Building Performance Study . It invites us to imagine the floors assemblies detaching from their connections to the columns of the core and perimeter walls, precipitating a chain reaction of floors falling on one another. Without the lateral support of the floors, the columns, FEMA tells us, buckled and precipitated total building collapse.

The truss-failure/pancake theory offered a way around the obvious problem with the column failure theory: the need for all the columns to be heated to 800º C. It offered instead prerequisite conditions that were far less implausible: that trusses holding up the floor slabs were heated to that temperature, and began to experience some combination of expansion and sagging. Floor trusses are much easier to heat because, unlike the columns, they are not well thermally coupled to the rest of the steel structure.

The Truss Failure Theory was was abandoned by NIST's investigation in 2004 because NIST was unable to get floor assemblies to fail as required by the theory. Documentaries that had promoted the truss failure theory became obsolete, and were quietly replaced with updated versions.

The Missing Steel
Some critics of FEMA's theory attacked the truss failure theory for the wrong reasons. One assumption of the theory is that the floor sections that spanned the Towers' cores and perimeter walls were undergirded only by the light web trusses. Although many structural details remain mysterious thanks to the unavailability of detailed engineering drawings, this assumption appears to be mostly true, modulo the observation that some floors appeared to be framed entirely with solid I-beams.

However, the anonymous Guardian author suggested that the idea that so many of the floors rested only on web trusses was a lie concocted to sell the pancake theory, arguing in a 2002 article that:

FEMA's building description leaves 32,000 tons of steel unaccounted for in each tower, given that the towers were known to each use 96,000 tons of steel.
A truss-only-based floor construction system would leave the floors too weak to transfer loads between the core and perimeter walls.
Guardian's conclusion about the extent of web trusses in the Towers appears to be mistaken: Between construction photographs and 60s-era articles in the Engineering News Record, there appears to be sufficient evidence to establish that floors outside of the cores, with the exceptions of top-most, bottom-most, and mechanical equipment floors, were supported entirely by web trusses. However, Guardian's calculations about the quantities of steel accounted for by FEMA's building description underline the failure of the official reports to provide a truthful and complete picture of the Towers' construction.

Deceptive Propaganda
Since the failure of a few trusses on a floor wouldn't automatically lead to a whole floor falling and starting the pancake syndrome, some fine tuning in the theory was needed. Dr. Thomas Eagar provided us with the zipper theory to explain how the failure of one truss could cause adjacent ones to fail. A horizontal domino effect of unzipping would precede the vertical one of pancaking. NOVA created a website to feature Eagar's promotion of the pancake theory which included a misleading animation of falling trusses, which failed to show either the transverse trusses or the steel floor pans.

From Sagging Trusses to Leveled Building
The unverified assumptions of the truss theory listed above are the least of its problems. It pretends that a few truss failures would automatically lead to the entire steel building crushing itself. What would be the likely chain of events following a floor failure envisioned by the truss theory?

Let's accept Dr. Eagar's zipper scenario (despite the clear evidence that fires did not cover a whole floor in either tower) and imagine that all the trusses of a floor failed in rapid succession and the whole floor fell. Then what? It would fall down about ten feet, then come to rest on the floor below, which was designed to support at least five times the weight of both floors, the fall cushioned by the folding of the trusses beneath the upper floor. But let's imagine that the lower floor suddenly gave up the ghost, and the two floors fell onto the next, and that failed, and floors kept falling. Then what? The floor diaphragms would have slid down around the core like records on a spindle, leaving both the core and perimeter wall standing.

Truss theory proponents hold that the core and perimeter wall lacked structural integrity without mutual bracing provided by the floor diaphragms. That may have been true in the event of a 140 mph wind, but not on a calm day. Note that the core had abundant cross-bracing, and would have been perfectly capable of standing in a hurricane by itself. And even if one imagines the outer wall buckling without that support, it does not begin to explain how it shattered into thousands of pieces, many of the column sections ripped from the spandrel plates at the welds, and how it shattered so quickly that no part of the wall remained standing above the falling dust cloud.

[billy]

the topic is where is osama. i know i went off topic answering some earlier posts but lets stay on topic. same goes to me vf , benny, cg and anyone else.

may i suggest putting the tower posts in a new thread which can be discussed separately.

lets just say osama is alive and in afghanistan. how many people would know where? and why has no one turned him in for the reward. ?

[Benny2guns]

the topic is where is osama. i know i went off topic answering some earlier posts but lets stay on topic. same goes to me vf , benny, cg and anyone else.

may i suggest putting the tower posts in a new thread which can be discussed separately.

lets just say osama is alive and in afghanistan. how many people would know where? and why has no one turned him in for the reward. ?

I do not think we are off topic at all. This is just proof as to weather or not it matters and may lead to finding out where he really is which will answer the question.

[billy]

the topic is where is osama. i know i went off topic answering some earlier posts but lets stay on topic. same goes to me vf , benny, cg and anyone else.

may i suggest putting the tower posts in a new thread which can be discussed separately.

lets just say osama is alive and in afghanistan. how many people would know where? and why has no one turned him in for the reward. ?

I do not think we are off topic at all. This is just proof as to weather or not it matters and may lead to finding out where he really is which will answer the question.

this is a mod call. rage about it in the sewer. the topic is where is osama
the twin towers and how they were blown up is irrelevant, we're not asking if he's innocent or guilty. we're asking where is.

[Benny2guns]

the topic is where is osama. i know i went off topic answering some earlier posts but lets stay on topic. same goes to me vf , benny, cg and anyone else.

may i suggest putting the tower posts in a new thread which can be discussed separately.

lets just say osama is alive and in afghanistan. how many people would know where? and why has no one turned him in for the reward. ?

I do not think we are off topic at all. This is just proof as to weather or not it matters and may lead to finding out where he really is which will answer the question.

this is a mod call. rage about it in the sewer. the topic is where is osama
the twin towers and how they were blown up is irrelevant, we're not asking if he's innocent or guilty. we're asking where is.

Thats fine but this is in no way rage. How can we find him if we are not allowed access to the information trail that he is supposed to have left behind? In order to do that we need to know which trail is the correct one. I'm just saying that when questions are asked you need to follow all existing evidence trails, especially in a missing persons case.

[billy]

rage rant maybe not, but you know what i mean benny.

you know the topic, you know this is the serious D and D
you wanna discuss a mod call don't do it here.